Have you heard about the movie Free the Nipple and the activist organization of the same name?

Free the Nipple is a docudrama about a group of feminists striving for topfreedom—the right of women to go topless in the same public places that men can. I know some of you are rolling your eyes, but they are the real deal. They've got chapters around the country, a team of lawyers and a stable of martyrs, by which I mean people willing to get arrested and test the laws in court.

Of course, a lot of folk think they're a bunch of militant feminitionists (feminist exhibitionists) merely trying to draw attention to their tits. I doubt that's true, but it doesn't matter. We are a supposed to be a free country. And yes, I am aware that doesn't mean we have the freedom to do whatever we want, wherever we want. What it does mean, however, is that our government may not deny a person, or group of people, their freedom to do something without having a damn good reason. Especially if it is permissible for a different person or group to do that exact same thing.

Well I sure don't know any reason why women can't show their areola in the places that men can. Nipples are nipples fer crissake. The only notable difference in appearance is the surrounding tissue, which on most women is bulbous and protruding. But so what? I've seen plenty of bulbous and protruding man-boobs exposed on the same beaches where flat-chested women are required to cover up.

Some state courts assert that the bosom is a sex organ and are therefore not analogous to a man's chest. This is absurd. The definition of sex organ is "an organ of the reproductive system," meaning it must have a function relative to reproduction, such as the vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, etc. Tits don't help make babies. Yes, they produce milk to feed them after they're born but lactation has nothing to do with reproduction per se.

Of course, we all know what the real reason is. The real reason is because female breasts are sexy and sexy scares the shit out of us! Remember how hysterical America became after Janet Jackson's nipple made a guest appearance at the Super Bowl? You'd have thought that nipple jumped off the stage and started raping people. It's so pathetic. So infantile. So irrational to demand a thing be covered because it might arouse us. As if there is something wrong with arousal. As if it would cause all the dicks in the country to explode. As if the fact that we like to have sex with a particular body part is a valid reason to hide it. If that were true then what about the other organs we like to have sex with that we see out in the open all the time? Like lips and tongues and the act of kissing. Think about it. When the tongues coil and explore the warm, wet wormhole of your connected mouths, and it feels like another galaxy is on the other side of that kiss, you cannot tell me that licking and fondling the mammilla is sexier, more intimate, than that.

So why don't all our genitals explode every time we encounter lips and tongues in public? All those filthy, dripping craws that maybe five minutes ago were wrapped around a male stripper's greasy pole, or seeking nirvana in the muggy recesses of an escort's call box? The reason we don't get horny when we see an uncovered mouth is because they have always been uncovered. Because the very act of concealment further sexualizes them. And that, my friend, is the only good argument against topfreedom. The danger of freeing the nipples is not that we may become all bonery and bothered by them, but rather, that we won't. That the magic and the mystery will fade and the naked female breast will turn in to just another thing that blocks a sign you're trying to read.

Nonetheless, my reservations don't factor into it. What's fair is fair. Which is why I say, "Free the nipple! Take the fight to the next level." And how might that be done, you wonder? Well, if I were the lawyer for the California feminitionist movement, I would employ a more aggressive legal tactic.

First, I would visit a few of the local drag houses to seek a queen who is down to martyr for the cause. Ms. Lottie von Hotty will have to look and act like a woman, but still have male genitals. When the time is right, Ms. von Hotty and I will stroll topless down Prospect Avenue in La Jolla until he is arrested and I, of course, am not.

Smash cut to the courtroom drama that is The State of California v. von Lottie. All eyes are on the prosecutors as they flounder to provide a legal reason why the provably male defendant was arrested for being topless right beside another topless male (me) who was not. If they try to say it's not about gender but about breast size, I'll run a slide presentation of Michael Moore, Kevin Smith, Chris Christie, Biz Markie, Chaz Bono and all 60 contenders in the U.S. Sumo Open exposing their floppy, fat tits in public. For closing arguments I will simply read the 14th Amendment and snort, "So I ask the court—with all due respect—what part of 'equal and impartial justice under the law,' is so hard to understand?"

Write to ed@sdcitybeat.com and editor@sdcitybeat.com. Edwin Decker blogs at www.edwindecker.com. Follow him on Twitter @edwindecker or find him on Facebook.

Make sure not to miss the Sordid Tales podcast!


See all events on Friday, Dec 2